Ian Chappell bats for Bucknor
A great cricketer he may be, but Ian Chappell, writing here while arguing the use of technology, gets simple logic mixed up
If you want a clue that the ICC’s current philosophy on technology is muddled then look no further than the response of former South African keeper Dave Richardson to Bucknor’s criticism. The ICC’s general manager — cricket, says about Bucknor’s umpiring year so far, “He’s averaging 96 % of his decisions being correct.”As I've said before, it doesn't really take a rocket scientist to figure out that the "96%" statistics hailed as the good performance by Bucknor includes the straightfoward chances as well. I'm more than sure his average for contentious decisions would be lower than that.
I assume, to a large degree this is in the opinion of technological aids like Hawk-Eye and Snickometer.
However, in the words of Ten Sports (Dubai) head of production Steve Norris, “The Hawk-Eye is 90 % accurate, that is what they (the creators) claim.”
Excuse me; “I’m sorry I’ll read that again.” An umpire is getting 96% of his decisions right, while on the other hand Hawk-Eye is guaranteed 90% correct. So, why do we need technology to protect the umpires?
As for 90% accuracy of Hawk-eye, two points. Firstly, no-one is using hawkeye to actuallly adjudicate on decisions - even the ICC's new ruling specifically rules out hawkeye and snickometer for which, btw, no-one told us the accuracy percentage. I have a suspiscion it may exceed the Bucknor barometer!
The second point is that the statement from Steve Norris is a blanket one. We don't know if Hawk-eye is less accurate in certain specific cases than others. But being a computer program, I would guess its flaw may be more evenly distributed.